Left In Lowell

Back on April 20th, the Sunday Sun had a front page article, written by City Editor, Christopher Scott on the hospital rivalry that exists in the City of Lowell. Unfortunately, it is no longer available on line without paying $2.95. If you have not read it or cannot remember the details, and you care about the economic and social future of the City, it is well worth paying that sum. Or you could visit Pollard Library, where everything is free.

Scott’s article focused on the “tension over the long-term future of the locally controlled hospitals in Lowell,” Saints Medical Center and Lowell General Hospital, and the “friendly rivalry.” At the time of the printing of the article, Women’s Health, providers of obstetrical and gynecological services, left Saints and signed an exclusive agreement with LGH.

The April 20th article is probably one of the best researched and written I have read in the paper. Unfortunately, it did not create the public noise it should have but it probably created the private discussions it demanded.

In addition to detailing the failed 2001 merger, Scott quotes State Senator Steve Panagiatakos, “The last thing we need is a boxing match between the two hospitals….They [the hospitals] are not for profit businesses formed to take market share from the other…We need functioning, high-efficiency hospitals. If one succeeds at the detriment of the other, that doesn’t help the system.”

Six months have gone by since that article. Last week, Scott reported that our state delegation, lead by Senator Panagiatakos wrote a letter to both hospitals and urged the two institutions to form an “alliance…to ensure that we have a locally controlled and community-oriented health-care system.” (more…)

This is a shocker to me…a real shocker. I knew that there was some controversy surrounding sex ed in our schools, but apparently, we’ve been subjected to one of those abstinence-only programs. You know, those programs that fail to arm our kids with real knowledge and as such, has helped bring up our rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in this country. Jackie alerts us:

At its curriculum subcommittee meeting on Monday, Sept. 15, the Lowell School Committee will explore offering comprehensive sex education to its students as opposed to the program in place since 2003 when district budget cuts and federal funding mandated abstinence-only programs.

The abstinence-only program currently offered in Lowell is called “Healthy Futures.”

Their “classroom presentation” (presumably what is offered in Lowell) includes five days of 50 minute lessons. It cites that its topics include:

• achieving goals
• healthy relationships
• sexually transmitted diseases
• teen pregnancy
• media influence
• substance use and its impact on sexual choices
• choosing abstinence regardless of past choices
• boundaries and refusal skills

Not one mention of contraception and other alternatives in the PDF for the program of the 7th-12th grade lesson program. Only this:

2. Abstinence
Abstinence and sexual activity are defined, stressing that an abstinent lifestyle is possible regardless of past choices. Students learn that sex is wonderful in the context of a faithful, lifelong relationship (i.e. marriage), but that there are physical and emotional risks outside of that context.

And some scare tactics about STDs. Nothing about the possibility of preventing them - if you do have sex - by using proper preventative measures.

Look, I am all for teaching abstinence. It is the surefire solution for preventing disease and pregnancy. In fact, I would even go so far as to say it should be given the biggest emphasis - because often for kids, they have sex before they are emotionally ready, and often do not have the confidence to say, “hey, we need a condom.”

However, biology is biology. Why else were you considered an old maid if you hadn’t married by age 17, a mere 100 years ago? We have to face facts - we push out the age of childhood older and older (through high school, now through college) but statistics show that puberty is hitting earlier and earlier. That widening window, between physical readiness and adult emotional maturity, will never go away. Until we admit that no matter what, some teens will have sex, and they need proper education on precautions, we will continue with our horrible rates of teen STDs and pregnancy (the worst in the industrial world).

Now to the solution. Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts (an organization I fully support) wants to offer Lowell middle and high school students their free, comprehensive, age-appropriate sex ed program. I wrote a while back about PPLM coming to Lowell to present their program to the superintendent and the school board. Now, apparently, the pro-abstinence-only folks might be raising a stink about replacing this dangerous abstinence-only program with one that includes abstinence and warnings about pregnancy and STDs, and also correct and vital information on contraception and other sex-related issues.

It is imperative that people of good conscience who want this comprehensive sex ed program in Lowell come show their support at a curriculum subcommittee meeting of the School Committee on Monday, Sept. 15, at 7pm on the 2nd floor of 155 Middlesex Street. If you can attend the meeting, let PPLM know by clicking here and filling out the RSVP.

Remember, the children of Lowell are depending on you to ensure that they are able to get the information they so desperately need, and we need to outshine the voices of fear and delusion that are, right now, endangering our children’s futures.

The personal family trials of VP pick Sarah Palin should be off limits. Obviously the press has a right to report and discuss the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter Bristol, but hands off interviewing her, her friends and people surrounding her in a paparazzi-like frenzy.

That said, it’s still a legitimate discussion point, particularly because of Palin’s views on abstinence-only education.

Statistics (real ones, not the faked ones we get from the Bush administration) show that teens who get abstinence-only ed, instead of comprehensive sex ed (which always includes abstinence, as well as contraceptive and other alternatives) are just as likely to engage in sexual activity as their more educated counterparts, but of course less likely to know all the information that could prevent them from getting sick or pregnant.

A recent CDC report said that 1 in 4 girls has an STD (sexually transmitted disease). Another CDC report told us last year that abstinence-only was literally ineffective (information which the Bush administration tried to release as quietly as possible on a Friday).

Sadly, it seems that Sarah Palin’s daughter had become another statistic proving this point.

The right thing to do, the moral one, is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I’m all for that. The route to do so, however, is not to lock your kids in a dark room blindfolded and hope they can trip and feel their way out on their own. I’ll say one thing - the McCain team is as opposed to real science and practical real-world solutions as the Bush administration has been. A fine legacy to take up if you ask me.

So I say let’s leave Bristol alone. However, her mother and her views on sex ed and a woman’s right to choose are totally fair game. And remember, the same right wingnuts who salivate over Palin and her family values are the ones who want to take contraceptives away - from consenting, even married, adults. Overturning Roe v Wade (which both McCain and Palin say they are for) overturns the reasoning for making bans on contraception unconstitutional.

And does anyone believe that McCain really knew about this? Of course he would say he did, even if he didn’t. “Uhhh…I meant to do that!” It’s like a comedy routine, only…it’s not funny.

All this, of course, shouldn’t overshadow Palin’s ethical troubles…which the McCain camp also says they knew about. Except they have now sent a campaign team to Alaska to, um, find out if there’s more to know. Oops!

Employees at Lifelinks, Inc, a Lowell and Chelmsford group that provides care to those with developmental disabilities via both day and residential programs, will go on a one-day strike on Monday. Strikers are demanding better wages and training. They cite high turnover as detrimental to the clients of Lifelinks, and the average paycheck is just around $11 an hour, which if you ask me, accounts for the turnover in employees.

From the statement of the employees, via SEIU Local 509:

We are even willing to tie our paychecks to training, but the company has rejected our proposals. Our average wage is little over $11.00 per hour. Many of us must work 2-3 jobs to support our own families. Management of the company has rejected these common sense ideas and has insisted on numerous take backs from the employees.

“We want better training, and we’re willing to tie our paychecks to better training, but the company keeps saying no,” according to Agnes Irungu, a direct care worker at LifeLinks who assists developmentally disabled people. “Our clients deserve better than they are getting and we’re willing to fight to make sure they get it.”

These are not “mere” service jobs, like cleaning houses (for which $11/hour is not a living wage either). This is human services, which requires skills, caring, and trusted employees. There is no way to argue that paying $11/hour for these jobs is helping anyone, least of all the clients.

From the statement again:

The decision to strike is not one that we take lightly; unfortunately we feel we are being forced into an unacceptable situation. All of us care deeply about the individuals we serve. We have been working hard to improve turnover and the quality of care not just at Lifelinks, Inc. but in the Human Services field in general. The company is rejecting common sense contract language that will not cost them a cent, allow the company to access new state revenue and improve training at our agency. In addition management wants to reduce leave time and reduce job security for many staff at the agency.

The 24-hour strike begins at 7:00 am on Monday, May 12, with a rally at 12 noon at 55 Middlesex Street. If anyone has any questions, they can call Cliff Cohn at 617-924-8509 x530.

No, it’s not a command on my part (though, if you do, you should). Just an alert about a new program in Lowell that I’ve been meaning to post about all week but kept not getting to. This pilot program will offer residents looking to kick the habit with two weeks of free nicotine patches. If you are a smoker, or care for someone who is, you can come to the kickoff event next Monday in support of it! Click on the link to read more details. (more…)

Not as bad as the corporate-welfare-recipient HMOs wanted, but still, a 12.1% increase in premiums? A 45% increase in copays? Does anyone else see the problem with wages which barely keep up with inflation (if they do) and state government mandated private HMO premiums that far exceed it?

Is it any wonder that most industrialized nations who have universal health care cut out the greedy middle man (the HMOs) and save a lot of money per person for it? And how can we still be ignoring the need for cost controls in our reform? What are we really getting for our taxpayer funds, and what more are we getting for such drastic increases? I don’t see it. I just see deteriorating quality, worse coverage, bad behavior (denial of coverage), and increased costs.

If this bodes what is to come, can you imagine someone who is barely affording paying $200 per month in premiums paying an approximately $25/month increase ($300 more per year) every year (plus bigger copays)?

Hey Niki Tsongas, what say you to Massachusetts health care reform, now? You were so gung ho on it in the election.

Lowell Women’s Week begins this Saturday, March 1 through Sunday, March 9th.
In case you din’t know, March is Women’s History Month. At the center of this is International Women’s Day, which is March 8th.
There are many events to participate in, throughout the City, so take a peek and join in! (more…)

This is why.

Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance offered by the state, is likely to get a hell of a lot more expensive this year — premiums up by 14%, co-pays way up.

Look, I’m all for universal health care. But I am not interested in poor-quality, expensive corporate welfare windfalls to piss-pot corporations. (Does it show that I’ve tangled with my own HMO far too often, given how much we’re paying?)

Public money for private health care is neither practical, affordable, or even that much help for the people who can afford it/get subsidized. It costs too much in overhead (private insurances’ administration costs far exceed that of public care here or in other countries…hiring people to deny you care), plus then there’s that pesky need to make a profit besides (that Medicare does not have). Health care solutions that mandate the public to buy into private health insurance explode into wasteful taxpayer boondoggles that only benefit the wealthy corporations that are already fleecing those of us with health insurance in the private sector.

Health insurers have proven time and again that they cannot, will not, or enjoy not fixing the problem. Their corporate need to make as big a buck as possible collides with the public good. That’s why health care mandates that do not include an option to opt into a central public health care system are doomed to failure while giving free money to private corporations that are already making a pretty penny. Maybe Obama’s health care won’t cut it either, but I refuse to think that the best way to go about this is to punish the middle class which won’t be subsidized and force them to get substandard care via the private sector, as Clinton’s health care plan does.

I was going to post about how, despite my still-heartfelt opposition to Clinton as a candidate, that we now have a real horserace, which is good for democracy and for the rest of the states who have felt left out until now. Susan says it so much better, though, stating that “I can’t help but get a feeling that the whole election/primary process is like a slate being cleaned and we are starting anew.” That’s exactly what it feels like.

I also wonder: did the totally stupid, negative weekend coverage of the Clinton “verklempt” moment really turn women to rallying for her yesterday? After all, women, as a whole, are the first to judge another woman, but they are also the first to rally around one when they are attacked unfairly. Much as I wish we were beyond this whole societal imposition of “what women should be like,” and that I think it’s a lousy way to choose a candidate (instead of looking more at whether or not she can deliver what people in this country need), the women who rallied around Clinton in NH yesterday displayed a very mature, media-savvy rejection of what has been a shameful, knuckle-dragging, caricature-driven pundit class which has made a complete ass out of itself.

In that sense, go Clinton! The more she can defy the media’s constrictions about what a female presidential candidate is or isn’t, or what she can or cannot do, the better for furthering equality for gender in general. However, it’s too bad that this phenomenon had to come to the rescue of the least progressive candidate who is the least likely to push for the reform we need in this country.

Now, the race really has gotten interesting, something us super-dooper-expealidocious Tuesday primary voters can probably really have an impact in. I might even be forced to actually endorse someone before February 5th!

Update: Kos himself had something to say on this, really quite a cogent read.

Update II: Holy crap! The delegate count shows that there is no way in Poughkeepsie you can yet make any statements about who’s going to win this thing, not even the statement “no way Edwards comes back from this.” And look at the Republican side, with Romney in the lead of pledged delegates without ever coming in first in either early state.

There’s a political debate raging everywhere, in particular on Tony’s post. Not about different health care proposals or poll bounces. Nope, it’s about whether or not Hillary Clinton really shed those tears.

For my own part, I suspect the tears were sincere, but to me it seemed more like the stress of her tailspinning campaign is getting to her and I think that may have had a hand in it.

I do sympathize with Clinton, despite the fact I do not want her as our nominee. The question she must have had to ask herself when she entered politics on her own terms is, “Do I act extra-tough because I need to prove that it doesn’t matter that I’m a woman?” But when she does, she winds up acting out of expectations for a woman (ie, people start calling her “bitchy”), therefore making her less electable or attractive (less human).

It’s a stupid, stupid world, where these questions are asked. To my mind, she should be able to be herself, whatever that is, and not have to worry about expectations of being the first woman with a real shot at the White House. But there it is. It’s a hard balancing act, and as she has taken on the mantle of “war hawk” in the Dem primary, she leaned towards “tough” instead of “feminine.” Then when she exhibits emotions, everyone leaps on her. She can’t win.

Truth to tell, this silly teargate is less important (for me, in choosing a candidate) than her actual votes in the Senate or her Establishment hawkishness or neoliberal economic policies or her taking lobbyist money. I only wish the MEDIA, and by extension the American people, were as capable of setting aside the stupid expectations of our glass-ceiling society and looking at the candidates carefully.

Maybe that’s the case. The media throws itself into a tizzy because of the tears…were they faked or calculated…is she showing her female (aka “soft”) side finally? But I think the voters in New Hampshire, and indeed in Iowa before and in the states after, know in general they are looking for “change,” and know in general that she is Old Guard. Maybe we’ll have a real democracy despite ourselves.

And the media will be left scratching its head trying to analyze it all.